skip to main content
10.1145/2463664.2465227acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Flag & check: data access with monadically defined queries

Published:22 June 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

We introduce monadically defined queries (MODEQs) and nested monadically defined queries (NEMODEQs), two querying formalisms that extend conjunctive queries, conjunctive two-way regular path queries, and monadic Datalog queries. Both can be expressed as Datalog queries and in monadic second-order logic, yet they have a decidable query containment problem and favorable query answering complexities: a data complexity of P, and a combined complexity of NP (MODEQs) and PSpace (NEMODEQs).

We show that (NE)MODEQ answering remains decidable in the presence of a well-known generic class of tuple-generating dependencies. In addition, techniques to rewrite queries under dependencies into (NE)MODEQs are introduced. Rewriting can be applied partially, and (NE)MODEQ answering is still decidable if the non-rewritable part of the TGDs permits decidable (NE)MODEQ answering on other grounds.

References

  1. S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison Wesley, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. H. Andréka, I. Nèmeti, and J. van Benthem. Modal languages and bounded fragments of predicate logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 27(3):217--274, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J.-F. Baget. Improving the forward chaining algorithm for conceptual graphs rules. In D. Dubois, C. A. Welty, and M.-A. Williams, editors, KR, pages 407--414. AAAI Press, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. J.-F. Baget, M. Leclère, M.-L. Mugnier, and E. Salvat. On rules with existential variables: Walking the decidability line. Artificial Intelligence, 175(9--10):1620--1654, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J.-F. Baget, M.-L. Mugnier, S. Rudolph, and M. Thomazo. Walking the complexity lines for generalized guarded existential rules. In Walsh {47}, pages 712--717. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. C. Beeri and M. Y. Vardi. The implication problem for data dependencies. In Proceedings of the 8th Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 73--85. Springer, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Benedikt, P. Bourhis, and P. Senellart. Monadic datalog containment. In A. Czumaj, K. Mehlhorn, A. M. Pitts, and R. Wattenhofer, editors, ICALP (2), volume 7392 of LNCS, pages 79--91. Springer, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. G. Brewka and J. Lang, editors. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'08). AAAI Press, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and M. Kifer. Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. In Brewka and Lang {8}, pages 70--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and T. Lukasiewicz. A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. In Paredaens and Su {41} pages 77--86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and A. Pieris. Advanced processing for ontological queries. Proceedings of VLDB 2010, 3(1):554--565, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and A. Pieris. Query answering under non-guarded rules in Datalog+/-. In P. Hitzler and T. Lukasiewicz, editors, Web Reasoning and Rule Systems, volume 6333 of LNCS, pages 1--17. Springer, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. D. Calvanese. Personal communication, September 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-Lite family. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 39(3):385--429, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, and M. Y. Vardi. Reasoning on regular path queries. SIGMOD Record, 32(4):83--92, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. K. Chandra, H. R. Lewis, and J. A. Makowsky. Embedded implicational dependencies and their inference problem. In Conference Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computation (STOC'81), pages 342--354. ACM, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. K. Chandra and P. M. Merlin. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. In J. E. Hopcroft, E. P. Friedman, and M. A. Harrison, editors, Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC'77), pages 77--90. ACM, 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. C. Civili and R. Rosati. A broad class of first-order rewritable tuple-generating dependencies. In P. Barceló and R. Pichler, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on the Resurgence of Datalog in Academia and Industry (Datalog 2.0, 2012), volume 7494 of LNCS. Springer, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. B. Courcelle. The monadic second-order logic of graphs, ii: Infinite graphs of bounded width. Mathematical Systems Theory, 21(4):187--221, 19Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. B. Courcelle. Recursive queries and context-free graph grammars. Theoretical Computer Science, 78(1):217--244, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. B. Courcelle. Personal communication, August 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. B. Courcelle and J. Engelfriet. Graph structure and monadic second-order logic, a language theoretic approach. manuscript, to be published at Cambridge University Press; available at http://www.labri.fr/perso/courcell/Book/TheBook.pdf, April 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. E. Dantsin, T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, and A. Voronkov. Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Computing Surveys, 33(3):374--425, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A. Deutsch, A. Nash, and J. B. Remmel. The chase revisited. In M. Lenzerini and D. Lembo, editors,Proc. 27th Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS'08), pages 149--158. ACM, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. A. Deutsch and V. Tannen. Reformulation of {XML} queries and constraints. In D. Calvanese, M. Lenzerini, and R. Motwani, editors, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT 2003), volume 2572 of LNCS, pages 225--241. Springer, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. Fagin, P. G. Kolaitis, R. J. Miller, and L. Popa. Data exchange: semantics and query answering. Theoretical Computer Science, 336(1):89--124, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. D. Florescu, A. Levy, and D. Suciu. Query containment for conjunctive queries with regular expressions. In Proceedings of the seventeenth ACM symposium on Principles of database systems, PODS '98, pages 139--148. ACM, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. G. Gottlob and C. Koch. Monadic datalog and the expressive power of languages for web information extraction. J. ACM, 51(1):74--113, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. G. Gottlob and C. H. Papadimitriou. On the complexity of single-rule datalog queries. Inf. Comput., 183(1):104--122, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. S. Greco and F. Spezzano. Chase termination: A constraints rewriting approach. Proceedings of VLDB 2010, 3(1):93--104, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. N. Immerman. Languages that capture complexity classes. SIAM J. Comput., 16(4):760--778, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Y. Kazakov. RIQ and SROIQ are harder than SHOIQ. In Brewka and Lang {8}, pages 274--284.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Y. Kazakov. An extension of complex role inclusion axioms in the description logic SROIQ. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2010), LNCS. Springer, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. M. Krötzsch and S. Rudolph. Extending decidable existential rules by joining acyclicity and guardedness. In Walsh {47}, pages 963--968.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. M. Krötzsch, S. Rudolph, and P. Hitzler. Conjunctive queries for a tractable fragment of OWL 1.1. In K. Aberer et al., editor, Proceedings of the 6th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'07), volume 4825 of LNCS, pages 310--323. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. L. Libkin. Elements of Finite Model Theory. Springer, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. B. Marnette. Generalized schema-mappings: from termination to tractability. In Paredaens and Su {41}, pages 13--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. M. Meier, M. Schmidt, and G. Lausen. On chase termination beyond stratification. Proceedings of VLDB 2009, 2(1):970--981, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. M.-L. Mugnier. Ontological query answering with existential rules. In S. Rudolph and C. Gutierrez, editors, Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR 2011), volume 6902 of LNCS, pages 2--23. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. M. Ortiz, S. Rudolph, and M. Simkus. Query answering in the Horn fragments of the description logics SHOIQ and SROIQ. In Walsh {47}, pages 1039--1044. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. J. Paredaens and J. Su, editors. Proc. Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS'09). ACM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. S. Rudolph and M. Krötzsch. Flag & check -- data-tractable expressive queries for intelligent databases (extended technical report). Technical Report 3030, Institute AIFB, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 2012. http://www.aifb.kit.edu/web/Techreport3030.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. O. Shmueli. Equivalence of DATALOG queries is undecidable. J. Log. Program., 15(3):231--241, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. L. J. Stockmeyer. The Complexity of Decision Problems in Automata Theory and Logic. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. L. J. Stockmeyer. The polynomial-time hierarchy. Theor. Comput. Sci.}, 3(1):1--22, 1976.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. M. Y. Vardi. The complexity of relational query languages. In H. R. Lewis, B. B. Simons, W. A. Burkhard, and L. H. Landweber, editors, STOC, pages 137--146. ACM, 1982. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. T. Walsh, editor. Proc. 22nd Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'11). AAAI Press/IJCAI, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Flag & check: data access with monadically defined queries

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          PODS '13: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI symposium on Principles of database systems
          June 2013
          334 pages
          ISBN:9781450320665
          DOI:10.1145/2463664
          • General Chair:
          • Richard Hull,
          • Program Chair:
          • Wenfei Fan

          Copyright © 2013 ACM

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 22 June 2013

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          PODS '13 Paper Acceptance Rate24of97submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate476of1,835submissions,26%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!